Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 313 (KER)

Suseela Chakrapani v. Union of India

2009-03-27

HARUN-UL-RASHID

body2009
JUDGMENT : 1. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband was a freedom fighter, who had actively participated in the Punnapra Vayalar Movement during the freedom struggle. On account of his active participation in the said struggle, he had undergone imprisonment in the Sub Jail, Alappuzha for the period from December, 1946 to October, 1947. It is also stated that the petitioner’s husband had also participated in Quit India Movement of 1942. On account of his participation in that movement, arrest warrant was issued against him in C.C.No.9/1942 and in order to evade the arrest, he had gone underground for a period of more than six months from 9/8/1942 to 16/4/1943 and as such he is entitled to get the benefit of “Swatantrata Sainik Samman Pension” (hereinafter referred to as “SSS Pension”). 2. Petitioner’s husband is a ‘‘Thamrapathra” holder and a recipient of Kerala Freedom Fighters’ Pension (State Pension). Ext,P2 is the application submitted for grant of SSS Pension. Petitioner also produced Personal Knowledge Certificate (PKC) issued by Sri V.K. Karunakaran and V.S. Achuthanandan, M.L.A. which are produced as Exts.P3 and P4. Petitioner also produced Co-prisoner certificate issued by Sri P.A. Solomon, Ex-M.P. Ext.P5 is the said certificate. Ext.P6 is the Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC) issued by the Superintendent of Special Sub Jail, Alappuzha. Since no further steps are taken by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed O.P.No.37992/2002. This Court recorded the undertaking of the 2nd respondent to the effect that the matter will be appropriately taken notice of and orders will be passed, if the petitioner satisfies the norms and action is to be taken within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Ext.P7 is the copy of the said judgment. Subsequent to Ext.P7 the 2nd respondent rejected the application stating that the Personal Knowledge Certificates are not acceptable due to lack of jail records of the certifiers and in the absence of acceptable evidence. Ext.P8 is the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Petitioner again submitted Ext.P9 representation. In the meanwhile the 1st respondent vide letter dated 16th June, 2003 directed the 2nd respondent to review the petitioner’s claim with reference to the Co-prisoner certificate issued by the Ex-legislators and the instructions concerning issue of Non-availability of Records Certificate. Ext.P11 is the said letter. Since the matter was protracted, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 20939/2003. Ext.P11 is the said letter. Since the matter was protracted, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No. 20939/2003. This Court by Ext.P 12 judgment quashed Ext.P8 and directed the 2nd respondent to forward the necessary recommendation within a period of two months thereafter. Pursuant to Ext.P 12 judgment, the 2nd respondent forwarded the recommendation to the 1st respondent 1 and the 1st respondent rejected the claim on the ground that the claim of the petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria and evidentiary requirements of the SSS Pension Scheme, 1980. The order passed by the 1st respondent is produced as Ext.P13. 3. Ext.P6 is the Non-availability of Records Certificate issued by the Superintendent of Special Sub Jail, Alappuzha. Cl. 9 of the Scheme stipulates that the applicant should produce NARC from one of the Authorities, namely, Jail Authorities, District Magistrates or the State Government. The reason stated for rejecting the petitioner’s application is that the applicant has not furnished a valid NARC from the State Government, file reason stated is wrong. In addition to NARC produced, Co-prisoner Certificates issued by the Ex-MLA and Ex-MP are also produced. The Co-prisoner certificate Issued by Sri Solomon, Ex-MP is accepted in other cases, he being the recipient of “Thamrapathra”, SSS pension and State pension. Therefore, non-acceptability of Solomon’s certificate for the reason that it is not supported by jail records, does not stand. The very fact that he is the recipient of SSS pension and State pension conclusively establishes that he had undergone imprisonment of more than six months. The requirement under the SSS Pension is that the certifier, who is an Ex-MP or Ex-MLA, should have undergone imprisonment for a minimum period of six months. Moreover the rejection of claim is bad for the reason that the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 30/10/2006 recommended the petitioner’s claim. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my attention the judgment in O.P.No.7749/2000 dated 29/9/2000. In that judgment this Court held that after the perusal of the certificate only Government recommended payment of pension. The reason for rejection of the pension application is the Non-availability of Records Certificate from the State Government. After considering NARC from the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court and after considering the two certificates issued from the Veteran Freedom Fighters and on local verification through District Collector, State Government recommended pension under the SSS Scheme. The reason for rejection of the pension application is the Non-availability of Records Certificate from the State Government. After considering NARC from the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court and after considering the two certificates issued from the Veteran Freedom Fighters and on local verification through District Collector, State Government recommended pension under the SSS Scheme. After recommendation by the State Government, it cannot be rejected for the reason that NARC was not given by the State Government. 4. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to sanction SSS pension due to the petitioner’s late husband and dependants family pension under the SSS Scheme to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P13 order is quashed. It is made clear that the petitioner is also entitled to arrears of pension from the date of receipt of the application dated 23/3/1998. Writ Petition is disposed of as above.